Eighty Twenty and the Silent Majority
With the controversy over the Joe Wilson incident (for those of you who have been off the planet, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted out “You lie!” at the President during his healthcare speech this past week…) American politics has turned into the Jerry Springer show on steroids. It is not enough to state your case and argue your position citing facts and attempting to educate and persuade. It is now commonplace to belittle your opponent as one would correct an out of control drunk in a bar - giving the opposition the same condescending attitude and even less respect than one would offer a drunk. Have we, as a society, really fully degraded into this uncivilized free-for-all that we see nightly on reports in the MSM and beyond?
There is a widely applied business theory that seems to translate equally well to the political arena. It states that 20 % of your clientèle use up 80% of your time and resources. If applied to politics, that would mean that roughly 20 % of the people are dominating the debate and pretty much sucking all of the air out of the room. This seems to be borne out by the various polls that consistently show a steady hard core right-wing conservative representation of about 10% of the population, and a roughly equal number on the hard core left-wing side. It is this combined 20% that contributes most of the money, buys most of the ads, and shapes most of the debate for the 80 % of us who have full lives and spend most of our time concentrating on living those lives and improving on them for the future. Other than the screeching 20% and the news-junkies who follow them around and give them attention, most Americans are busy working, paying the rent / mortgage, providing for their families and spend far more time worrying about Johnny's grades in school than the national GDP.
Richard Nixon provided insight into this phenomenon in calling upon the "great silent majority" to let their voice be heard. He recognized, as today's pundits and politicians do not, that most people have more pressing matters to deal with than if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il has their panties in a bunch. We elect people to deal with that so that we don't have to. It is when the issues that politicians meddle with affect our lives that a rumbling occurs in the heartland of America.
Such issues are always local, and more often than not, economic. Bill Clinton had it right in many ways with his famous mantra "It's the economy, stupid". GW Bush understood that feeling safe in our homes was also a basic factor in the silent majority staying comfortable. He came down hard on those who would threaten our way of life, and urged us to live our lives normally and "keep shopping" - he would take care of the bad guys. Ronald Reagan understood the power of the silent majority - neither Jimmy Carter or Bush the First did - to their detriment.
The silent majority does not change - it wants to live in peace and what it perceives as prosperity. It shies away from war unless provoked. It believes in the future, and believes in the essential goodness and competence of most people. It believes that if you play by the rules you will be rewarded. It frowns on those who cheat, or to use an Obama phrase - who "game the system". These are the good, hardworking people that go to work, provide for their families, pay their taxes and make decisions as a group as to how best handle the challenges that face us as a group, as a country. Most of them are sickened by the screaming matches that have replaced reasonable discussion and debate. Most would like to be presented with the facts and to make an informed decision. Most want the problems of healthcare, the wars, the economy, and poverty dealt with in a humane and effective way. The yelling is a turn off.
Common Sense Dictates
Outside of the extremists on both sides, no one thinks welfare should be a way of life for generations; everyone thinks that a public school education should prepare you for being a responsible adult. No one believes that we do not need a military, everyone believes that it should not be the first tool used when a crisis arises. No one believes that racism is dead; everyone knows that great progress has been made since the days of segregation and Jim Crow. No one believes that every Muslim is a terrorist, everyone knows that some are. No one thinks that corporate greed can just go unchecked; everyone feels some discomfort with the government bailing out private companies and then exerting influence in return. No one wants to take the time to go and vote, and have those that they vote for display the actions of four year-olds (and we mean no offense to four year-olds by this). No one wants to elect a leader, and not be able to figure out where he is leading.
That great silent majority made a decision in 2006 and in 2008. It felt that the Republicans as a whole were not doing an effective and informed job in 2006 and gave the legislature to the Democrats. In an election that finished closer than the Bush / Kerry election, after an campaign that saw the McCain run for the White House fall apart into chaos, Barack Obama was elected President, mostly because he seemed more stable. The results of both elections was sorely over-interpreted by those elected to be a mandate for the extreme leftists. As discussed before, most of America resides in the center, most of it a little right of center. The extreme left agenda is no more palatable than the extreme right agenda. The silent majority looks for solutions to our challenges - not social engineering or Darwinist economic policy. The silent majority does not look to the government to solve all of our problems, but understands that some problems require government input. It does look to our elected representatives to bring ideas to the table and to be able to discuss and debate them intelligently. That is really all that they ask for.
Those currently holding power should caution against "ramming programs through" without opposition input or consent. Dismissing the concerns of a sizable portion of Americans could tip the balance of the 2010 congressional elections to the favor of the Republicans. If that happens, the Republicans should not overestimate the conservatism of the American public or power will swing back again before long. Reasonable progress is what the silent majority seeks - Common Sense Dictates that our elected representatives heed that, and reel in the sucking up to the extremists.
RLB
Categories: Civic Duty, Historical perspective, Partisan Politics
Tags: government gridlock civic responsibility
As I understand it the founding fathers fought very hard against what was called the "tyranny of majority" in which a simple majority could impose it's will on the minority. All of those checks and balances and rules in the Senate and House revolved around this concept. The big states could not push around the small ones, the populous could not push around the ones with few people, one region could not push around another, on and on... The system was designed this way to protect the rights of those who do not agree with the majority. To get anything major done in this country, it needs to be agreed to by a vast majority of the American people - these are ideas that have universal acceptance. Ramming something through on a 51 - 49 vote runs counter to everything that the founding fathers stood for.
Reply to this
Sounds like you're worried that te Senate will pull a fast one on health care. I have some good degree of faith that the sluggishness of the system will overcome the zealousness of the extreme left and we will wind up with some reform that we all can approve of. At least the 80% mentioned as the "silent majority" - which would be your "vast majority". Party line votes are never good for setting long term policy. Both the extreme left and the extreme right need to sit down and shut up, and let the rest of us make rational decisions based in fact not hype.
Reply to this
Maybe you need to shout when you feel that you're not being heard. Take Joe Wilson - Obama stated an absolute lie on the podium, in front of the assembled government and millions of citizens watching on TV, and Rep. Wilson called him on it to his face. I'm only upset the Wilson felt the need to apologize to Obama for pointing out that what he was saying was not true. The issue - for those who never got it, was Obama's claim that illegal aliens would not get the government health care. Rep. Wilson knew and argued that two amendments offered by the Republicaans to enforce this were slammed down by the Democrats. Without enforcement there is NOTHING to stop illegals from getting benefits. All the Republicans were looking for was to add on the enforcement measure that applies to 77 other "benefit" programs offered by the federal government. The only reason to deny that would be to make sure illegals could tap into the program. No body was talking about that issue before Wilson shouted out - now it's a big issue in the news. Max Baucus (putting together the Senate bill for the Dems) has conceded that we really do need that enforcement provision attached to any health bill. I say good for someone shouting out loudly - sometimes it needs to happen.
Reply to this
Shouting out "Fire" in a crowded theater is probably ok if there is an actual fire, but I think that the point here is that with everyone shouting all the time, no one pays attention to any of it. I don't agree that Joe Wilson was right to disrespect the president the way he did, but he was able to get press coverage of what he considers to be an important issue. Maybe you're right in that he felt that he needed to shout to be heard, but if we all could turn down the volume and the childish arguments, maybe his ideas could have been heard without that embarrassing incident.
Reply to this
That has to come from both sides, and if you're going to get up on a podium and lie to people, you need to be called on it. And if Obama wasn't aware of the lack of enforcement, maybe at least he should read that 1300 pages of legalese that is making the rounds as a health bill. If anyone should have a mastery of the facts, it should be the President, and Obama clearly does not.
Reply to this
That's been the complaint all along - Obama gives a good speech, but doesn't do his homework so his speeches always give the right wing ammunition. Every speech has at least one glaring factual error that gives Rush or Hannity the ability to portray Obama as uninformed or telling tales that aren't true. Only Obamacan fix how he presents himself, and getting his facts straight would go a long way towards a cure.
Reply to this
So is this realy going to turn into a Wilson / Obama debate? I'm one of the 80% - I'd like them all to just stop and go back to being civilized and maybe fix some of the problems facing this country. The posting is right about twhere the answers are too - they are in the middle ground. It is very rare to find a workable solution on either of the far ends of the political spectrum.
Reply to this
This is what I'm seeing - people who are single issue voters (abortion, gay rights, crime, etc) seem to be the most vocal, and care the most about their issue. They find the party that caters best to them and then they take their committment and drive it to the top of the party agenda. Most people don't have the time or the energy to do that, or even to tell the loudmouths to shut up. So they are the "news". I don't think that most voters are single issue voters, and they do represent the "middle". I think the politicians are so insulated from reality that they think that the shriekers are their real constituents. The sad part is that now the reasonable people in the middle need to yell to be heard above the shriekers. I try to fix my end by staying as reasonable as possible and sending regular emails on issues of importance to my congressman - and sicking to facts. He (or his staff) have answered nearly all of them with an equally thought out reply. It might be a place to start.
Reply to this
Well, I know that I'm conservative on some things, and more liberal on others, but I never see myself agreeing with either the far right or the far left 100% on anything (except that maybe 2 trillion dollars of debt is too much). I think that this piece is on the mark - the loonies are controlling the conversation, and they insist on screaming and name-calling. It's a shame when someone who tries to bring an issue to the front is ignored unless he rudely calls out the President during a prime time address. A shame, but apparently necessary to be heard.
Reply to this
There is never any good reason to be disrepectful of any President addressing a public forum. It shows no respect for the office or the country. You might as well burn a flag.
Reply to this
Does that include George W Bush?
Reply to this
Yes - there are other ways to disagree very publicly - as the Tea Partiers prove - without directly insulting the President in his presence.
Reply to this
Glads you can be even-handed in your support of the office, but just a reminder - when you live in a country where it's illegal or bad form to insult even the highest elected official, you live in a dictatorship. Rudeness my not be pretty, but sometimes it is necessary. Just read the debates on the Constitution back in 1787, and the things said among the representatives then.
Reply to this
Well, it would be nice if we could get the volume toned down, and the debate about actual facts instead of fear-mongering. It does seem that both sides are telling whoppers about each others positions, and not doing much to actually explain their own positions. Joe Wilson did try to do this, and no one cared to listen. For the government to debate facts, the public has to stop and look at the same facts - not just react to the latest web gossip or political ad. Sound bites never solved anything.
Reply to this
This goes back to the lack of education about the government. Civics and government classes - which used to be mandatory in grammar school - no longer exist in public education, except maybe as electives in very fortunate school systems. The majority of "voters" today have no real idea of how the government works, what it is supposed to do (and not supposed to do) and this ignorance is killing us. Elections are not "American Idol" - you don't vote just because you like the guy, or he looks good on TV. Issues need to be examined, and that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. Voting is not only a right, but a responsibility. Knowing about your government is also a responsibility. Honest to God, your source of information really needs to be more than Jon Stewart to make an informed choice. When the electorate is educated in the process and the issues, the screaming fits and lying will no longer get rewarded, and the debate will elevate itself.
Reply to this
I like that - why should the politicians respect us, when we don't respect ourselves to do what we are responsible for and look at the real issues? I do think they are hearing us on healthcare right now, but even with that a lot of the info going around is internet rumor. "An educated electorate is the best guarantor of freedom" G. Washington
Reply to this
-Looks like the basic point is getting missed in all of the Joe Wilson BS. The wings are divided and controlling the debate. The vast majority of people are not that extreme on either side. Polls are also generally answered by activist types. That split will always, by the math, be 50/50. That would mean that the vast majority of Americans, who have the required "common sense" have not weighed in with that "common sense". Enacting policy for all 100% of Americans based on the 50/50 split of the lunatic fringe is nuts. It would anger more people than it would please, and is a sure way to lose the next election. When things are quiet, it's hard to get them out to vote. When they feel that they've been shafted, they line up at the polls. Consensus means more than simple majority.
Reply to this
So what's the solution - throw everyone out and only vote for people who want to work on real issues constructively? You'd have to remake the entire political landscape. As long as everyone ownd a microphone, a video camera, and a YouTube account the nuts will run the show - because only they care that much. It's fighting a losing battle.
Reply to this
Voting responsibly might help some - don't reward a person who sinks to the political lows with your vote. It would be hard for me to vote Democrat, but I could certainly vote for the more sane Republican in the primary process. If the sane Democrat meets the sane Republican in the general election, maybe we can get some sane solutions in the government. That will be hard to pull off too with the loonies controlling the message, but we can try.
Reply to this
You change congress like you change society - replace it one person at a time.
Reply to this